From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 30 January 1869. 1d.

SELLING DRINK DURING PROHIBITED HOURS

George Harding, of the "Lord Warden," was summonsed for with keeping his house open during Divine Service.

Mr. Mourilyan appeared for the defendant.

Richard Jordan said that on Sunday, the 17th inst., by direction of Buss, the constable, he went to defendant's house about eleven a.m., and was served with a pint of beer in the kitchen by Mr. Harding. Two other men were there - one named Terry. They were both served beer by Mr. Harding, and both paid for it.

Cross-examined: Buss went for him and asked him to do this, as he wanted to catch defendant. Had not yet been paid anything for the spying. Should like to be paid of course, and expected to be paid for his day's work.

Chief Constable Buss said that on the 17th inst. He saw the last witness and two other men, one of whom was a resident in Sandwich named Terry, go from the road towards the back of defendant's house. This was about seven o'clock in the afternoon. Could not see whether they entered the house or not.

Mr. Mourilyan then addressed the Bench for the defence, and admitted that if they believed the evidence of the witness Jordan there certainly was evidence against his client. But he entreated them to receive that evidence with the greatest caution, as in all courts of law the evidence of an informer was received with suspicion, and was required to be corroborated. Now in this case they had only the evidence of the informer, and he maintained that such evidence was not sufficiently corroborated to justify the Bench acting on it. Of course neither his client, Mr. Harding, nor his wife could give evidence in the case, but he was instructed to say that they both indignantly and most positively denied the charge. The learned gentleman, after some further remarks said: "Before I sit down I must say I see with regret this French spy system introduced into England, and more particularly in the old town of Sandwich. I will not waste words on the witness Jordan, but will only say that the man who will sell his fellow-man for filthy lucre will be treated with caution and disdain by all responsible persons." As for the conduct of Chief Constable Buss, he was sorry that he had stooped to such means as these. Surely if he were more active and took a little more pains he had no need to employ such men as the witness Jordan to do his dirty work. If......

Here the Mayor interrupted Mr. Mourilyan, and said whatever the constable had done was with the sanction and approval of the Magistrates.

Mr. Mourilyan said he was indeed sorry and astonished to hear it. Surely it was bad enough for a constable to use such means to obtain a conviction, but that any bench of Magistrates could stoop to such a thing amazed him beyond measure. Where was the safety of the subject if the Bench were first to employ spies and then act on their evidence? In this case he felt it would be useless for him to occupy their time any longer, for it was not likely that they would discredit the evidence of their own paid witness, and that nothing he could say would be of any avail. He would therefore sit down. The learned gentleman resumed his seat amid the applause of a crowded court.

The court was cleared, and on the readmission of the public, the Mayor said that they fined the defendant 10s. and 12s. costs, and told him complaints had been made about his house. He also warned him that if he again offended the fine would be increased. With reference to Mr. Mourilyan's remarks, his Worship said that such people as the witness Jordan were often employed in London.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 24 March, 1900.

COMMITTED FOR STEALING A MOP

Douglas Drayson was charged on remand with stealing from the stable-yard of the "Lord Warden," a mop, value 1s. 3d., the property of Frederick J. Ralph.

The evidence taken at the previous hearing having been read, the Chairman announced that in consequence of a previous conviction it was the duty of the Bench to commit the prisoner for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. They were truly sorry to see the prisoner in such a position, particularly as they had known him many years, and he came of respectable parents.

Bail was offered in two sureties of £10 each, and the prisoner in £10. Drayson was removed in custody.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 12 May, 1900.

THE MOP STEALING CASE

Douglass Drayson was then arraigned and charged with stealing a mop and handle, value 1s. 3d., the property of Frederick J. A. Ralph, at Sandwich on the 15th March, to which he pleaded not guilty.

The Grand Jury found a True Bill in each case, and the Petty Jury empanelled to try them comprised - Messrs. W. Howard (foreman), Henry Chapman, E. Castle, T. J. Collard, H. Hook, G. Lewin, G. Cullen, W. Burton, E. Brisley, William Austen, M. DeCosta, and W. H. Sidders.

Mr. Hubbard, Town Clerk of Ramsgate, said he had just been introduced to undertake to conduct the prosecution in the prisoner Drayson's case. The facts were very simple and short, and he would leave it to the witnesses to state them, except to say that when apprehended by the constable and charged with stealing the mop, prisoner said he had been in the habit of using it for something like a month, but afterwards made a statement that he had only just picked it up, and in consequence of being afflicted with rheumatic gout, had used it just for the moment.

P.C. Phillips deposed that he was on the quay at Sandwich on the 15th March at one o'clock in the morning, and saw prisoner coming down Ship Alley with the mop (produced) in his hand. Witness asked him what he was going to do with it, and he said he was obliged to come up and get it, because he was lame and could not walk. Witness struck several matches and examined the mop, and asked prisoner how long he had had it. He replied that he had had it for a month, and used it every day. Witness made enquiries and found that the mop belonged to Mr. Ralph, and therefore arrested prisoner. When charged, prisoner said "Well we shall soon get over that."

By Prisoner: He was leaning on a stick in the other hand, and not on the mop.

Frederick J. Ralph, of the "Lord Warden," Sandwich, said the mop belonged to him, and was used the previous day.

Thomas Edward Clark, in Mr. Ralph's employ, said the mop was left outside the stable door the night before.

By the Recorder: Anyone passing down the road would see the mop.

Prisoner: Supposing the mop fell down, I suppose any one could pick it up without trespassing.

Witness: The mop was standing by the rain water butt.

Prisoner, addressing the Jury, said he was very lame, and was looking for something to support himself with, as he was so troubled with rheumatic gout and could not stand. he went down this bye-lane to try and find a stick or something to support himself with, when he found the mop in the roadway. He picked it up, and as it looked like an old one that had been thrown to one side, he made a sort of crutch of it and helped himself along with it.

A Juror: How came you, at that time of night, to be looking for some support?

The Recorder: You must not ask the prisoner questions. He is simply making a statement.

Mr. Hubbard said the prisoner seemed to have made two various statements. In the first place he told the constable he had had the mop in his possession a month, the same as he told the Magistrates, and now he told the Jury that he had just picked it up. Here they found the man in possession of another man's property, and he had to give a reason why that property, belonging to another, was in his possession. Otherwise, it was inferred that he had converted it to his own use - in fact, that he had stolen it. The prisoner in this case had made two statements, and it was for the Jury to decide whether they believed his statement, or whether they were to infer that he was untruthful in what he stated. As he had told an untruth, the fact that he had stolen the mop might be fairly inferred.

The Recorder said it was a very simple case, and the evidence was very short. The prisoner said he thought the mop was useless and one that had been thrown away, and that he used it to get along with. If it were true that he thought it belonged to nobody and had been thrown away, he would have a perfect right to take charge of it until he found it belonged to somebody else, and he would be acting within his rights in using it. But his story did not seem to be a very true one. he could not think a man would be walking about at a quarter to one, practically in the middle of the night, looking for someone to help him along. It was a time when most people were in bed, and it seemed the more remarkable that a man who had rheumatism, as prisoner said he had, should be walking about in the middle of the night. And when the police came he did not tell the truth, and say, as one would expect him to do, that he had picked it up and thought it did not belong to anyone, but he goes into the story that he was lame and had to go home and fetch the mop, and that he had had it a month. If they thought a man who would tell such a story to the policeman, would tell the truth in other matters, they were at liberty to believe him, but he should have thought that if one part of the story were true he would have told the truth to the other, which he did not seem to have done, and the Jury must take that into consideration, when they considered whether his story as to his thinking the mop was useless and did not belong to anyone was a true one or not. It was for the Jury to say whether they thought his story was correct, or that he was walking about, probably looking  for what he could get, and that although he knew perfectly well the mop belonged to someone else, he thought it a good opportunity to take it, in the middle of the night, and did so.

The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he admitted having been convicted of felony at the Deal Quarter Sessions in 1898.

In reply to the Recorder, Sup. Chaney said the prisoner was a native of Sandwich, and had, in fact, been a tradesman there. he had, however, of late frequented public houses, given way to drink, and committed petty thefts.

The Recorder said it was of course a very small felony, and if prisoner had not been charged before he should have dealt very leniently with him, and probably given him a days' imprisonment. But unfortunately he had been before the Court before, and from what the police said he seemed to have taken to drink and to be fast going down hill. Prisoner had, however, already been in gaol two months, waiting to be tried, and he thought that should be taken into consideration. Probably if he went to prison for another month he would have time to think over his foolish conduct; at all events he would be kept from drink. The sentence of the Court was that he be kept to hard labour for one month.